Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I agree completely, and the data is the evidence. And the data just shouts fake, it comes from hoaxers.

Right, and when he asks about the specifics on the casts and what looks fake about them, it's good to be prepared.

Quote:

see, you are putting words in my mouth.
If it were me instead of Cohrs, it wouldn't be dull at all, and I would not be "repeating basic generalized statements over and over."

Ok, well I haven't seen any specifics introduced.

Quote:

Here is the heart of the matter, imho. The issue is not whether Sasquatch has been proven to exist. Science investigates all sorts of speculative issues. That is what science does. The issue is not so much that Meldrum doesn't have a foot, but that he has a bunch of fake data. If his plaster casts were reliable data , then I say let him do his thing, whether Sasquatch has been proven to exist or not. But the casts come from a motley and unknown collection that includes numerous proven hoaxers. They are useless, deceptive and scientifically unsound, except as material for those who investigate hoaxers.

Right, but he will ask specifics on the casts and how they were deemed a fake, which would take an indepth discussion of the morphology.

Quote:

If you concede that the data are authentic, well, then you concede his legitimacy, and he will never lose that debate with you. He has his opinion, you have yours, which (forgive me, I'm speculating) is really just a weak echo of someone elses, and frankly Meldrum's opinion matters more than yours... you can't win that debate with him.

You would be wrong.

Quote:

Well, some may have, I found it fascinating. it was like reality tv. you may have missed the most significant parts of what makes Meldrum tick.

But that isn't the point. If you tried to debate him on his terms, you would be shown up in the first five minutes. You would try to uphold somebody else's research, in a field that (I'm guessing) you really are pretty unsophisticated... I think you either grossly underestimate Meldrum or overestimate yourself....You have a quote or two...within a minute he would come up all sorts of stuff you weren't aware of....he'll say he talked to White on the phone last week and White now agrees with him. or something. I promise you. He has the high ground on you. He's not some hick off in the weeds on this stuff... and you would be like Cohrs for the next hour and a half. It would be boring, imho.

Your guess would, again, be wrong.

Quote:

I wouldn't be that easy, because he would not have the high ground on me.

Eisner would say: human feet can't work this way.
Meldrum: not a human foot.
rinse and repeat for 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Right, Meldrum tries to discredit Eisner's theories because he is not a ape foot expert. He is a pediatrist. Which brings us back to the old human vs ape argument we are all bored with. Dr. Eisner has ever said that Bigfoot was a human, he just states his disagreements for Meldrum's MTB gobbledygook.

Dr. Eisner was actually in the chat room during that show and was asking questions to Dr Meldrum that were never aknowledged.

It seems everyone's theories are crap and only Dr. Meldrum cannot be questioned.

__________________"Get the proof, then deal with the protectionist angles later. 40 something years of beating the bush is enough. Put up or shut up."~Graz

His paper "gave" a scientific name to the tracks of the animal, not to the animal.

Prints not tracks, if we're splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by parnassus

Krantz had tried and failed to give a name to the animal.

Same difference. The implication from Meldrum's paper is that an organism other than Homo sapiens is alive and well in North America and is leaving those footprints.

Originally Posted by parnassus

Last time I checked Meldrum's suggestion had not been officially accepted, but sometimes this process takes a long time.

"Ignored" would be too strong a word. You've got to be aware of something before you can ignore it. If he want's his ichnotaxon recognized, he should attempt to publish in Science or Nature - and if he's right, the manuscript would be worthy. But its' not, because he isn't, so it won't.

wolftrax: Right, and when he asks about the specifics on the casts and what looks fake about them, it's good to be prepared.

well, you seem to have the ability to debate those questions. That is great.
Ok, well I haven't seen any specifics introduced.
Well, yes and no. You have seen some, but I'll have to leave it at that for the time being.

Right, but he will ask specifics on the casts and how they were deemed a fake, which would take an indepth discussion of the morphology.

well, that would not be my approach.

You would be wrong.

good for you. I don't think his whole foot thing makes any sense. So I'm glad you have that expertise. Do you see any opportunity to engage in this debate?

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Same difference. The implication from Meldrum's paper is that an organism other than Homo sapiens is alive and well in North America and is leaving those footprints.

"Ignored" would be too strong a word. You've got to be aware of something before you can ignore it. If he want's his ichnotaxon recognized, he should attempt to publish in Science or Nature - and if he's right, the manuscript would be worthy. But its' not, because he isn't, so it won't.

The term "tracks" appears in the title of the paper.

I think the implication is there. But it is only an implication, even if the ichnotaxon is accepted/recognized. (I assume you mean something like "primate" rather than "organism.")

You are more familiar with the process than I am.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Right, so the logical next step is how this worked in bipedal ape feet.

Meldrum brings in the Laetoli trackway, which was made by what is generally accepted as a human ancestor, if you will. His contention is these feet showed a mid tarsal break, if I understand correctly. But he doesn't seem to believe that Sasquatch is on that evolutionary pathway. He seems to think that some ape, maybe Giganto, has made parallel evolutionary changes. Is that correct?
If so, where do you debate him on these issues?

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

I think the implication is there. But it is only an implication, even if the ichnotaxon is accepted/recognized.

Meldrum is trying to gain precedent for a scientific name for "bigfoot" by proposing to name the species based on the footprints he claims it has left - and continues to leave - behind. Because we seem to have great difficulty in obtaining a proper, physical type specimen, he's proposing that it be named based on the impressions it leaves behind, i.e., an ichnotaxon.

There is no margin for error here. If you are proposing to establish a scientific name for something, then you are 100% convinced of the authenticity of the data you provide to support your contention. The bulk of your paper should be devoted to making your case. In submitting that paper for publication, Meldrum has established his professional opinion that there really is a flesh and blood population of "bigfoots" roaming the North American forests, right now.

Meldrum is trying to gain precedent for a scientific name for "bigfoot" by proposing to name the species based on the footprints he claims it has left - and continues to leave - behind. Because we seem to have great difficulty in obtaining a proper, physical type specimen, he's proposing that it be named based on the impressions it leaves behind, i.e., an ichnotaxon.

There is no margin for error here. If you are proposing to establish a scientific name for something, then you are 100% convinced of the authenticity of the data you provide to support your contention. The bulk of your paper should be devoted to making your case. In submitting that paper for publication, Meldrum has established his professional opinion that there really is a flesh and blood population of "bigfoots" roaming the North American forests, right now.

You might have mentioned it before, but has he already started, or is he preparing now to formally go through the process? And is what he's asking to be done ever been done before? I find it really hard to believe that it has to this same degree. Obviously they've classified animals that were long ago extinct, but they surely had more than just footprints to do it with...didn't they?

His attempting such a (seeming) unorthodox approach raises so many red flags IMO. Especially given that I already think he's a fraud and fake. I definitely don't believe he's a 'good scientist'. His actually getting 'Bigfoot' officially named by science would be a real coup, and is one of the very few things I believe he could do to get him off the hook for his habitually less-than-stellar 'science' regarding Bigfoot. The notion he's doing it for such sinister reasons cannot be discounted IMO.

Regardless of whatever else I might think of him, I mostly believe Meldrum hasn't been HONEST with us/everyone. I believe he was convinced of Bigfoot's existence LONG before he became a 'scientist', and has simply used being a 'scientist' to cover for such beliefs. I mean, please, somebody tell me where he's applied normal, righteous, critically thought, scientifically accepted principles and standards to properly prove Bigfoot's existence. To me, one being misled and convinced by easily fabricated 'evidence' (tracks/prints) just doesn't compute if you're a supposedly savvy, astute, let's-get-to-the-bottom-of-this scientist. Ironically, NOT being 'misled' is kinda the entire premise of being a 'scientist'.

I think I need to add that I do still believe he now knows (or believes) there is no such beast, and anything he does nowadays regarding such 'Bigfoot science' is mostly (or solely) for financial gain. I doubt he's getting rich at it, but it allows him to appear sincere and get paid for it. That particular point being the biggest reason I consider him a fraud. Even if he sincerely 'believed' in the past, he knows now. His own sloppy science or not, I don't know how he can't.

Meldrum brings in the Laetoli trackway, which was made by what is generally accepted as a human ancestor, if you will. His contention is these feet showed a mid tarsal break, if I understand correctly. But he doesn't seem to believe that Sasquatch is on that evolutionary pathway. He seems to think that some ape, maybe Giganto, has made parallel evolutionary changes. Is that correct?
If so, where do you debate him on these issues?

The midtarsal break is not an evolutionary change, it would be considered by Meldrum a symplesiomorphy, a shared trait in afarensis and sasquatch and also their ancestors.

Debating him on bipedalism in Gigantopithecus and those who oppose it like Chiochon and the reasons why I think would be interesting, but not a deal breaker.

Meldrum is trying to gain precedent for a scientific name for "bigfoot" by proposing to name the species based on the footprints he claims it has left - and continues to leave - behind. Because we seem to have great difficulty in obtaining a proper, physical type specimen, he's proposing that it be named based on the impressions it leaves behind, i.e., an ichnotaxon.

There is no margin for error here. If you are proposing to establish a scientific name for something, then you are 100% convinced of the authenticity of the data you provide to support your contention. The bulk of your paper should be devoted to making your case. In submitting that paper for publication, Meldrum has established his professional opinion that there really is a flesh and blood population of "bigfoots" roaming the North American forests, right now.

well, perhaps we are splitting hairs. The precedents are there for naming tracks before the exact nature of the beast is known, but naming the track certainly says there is a beast. I don't know if there has ever been a question of fraud. I have to agree that Meldrum has committed himself scientifically, regardless of what he says to reporters, etc, about not being certain.

The issue of the authenticity of the data is crucial. I don't see how Meldrum can defend it. But if you allow him to drag it in, then it all becomes Meldrum's opinion (minority or not) against several others. And it seems to me that his field is pretty subjective in many ways.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

While few scientists give Bigfoot’s existence any credence, one who does is Jeffrey Meldrum, an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University who has two zoology degrees from BYU. He is the author of the book “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science,” a companion to the Discovery Channel documentary of the same name. Dubbed by some as America’s “Bigfoot professor,” he’s been a believer ever since he came across 15-inch footprints a decade ago in the woods near Walla Walla, Wash.

Most people scoff at Bigfoot reports — Meldrum’s colleagues at ISU signed a petition when he hosted a Bigfoot symposium on campus and some of his fellow science professors want his tenure revoked. Detractors point out that to date scientists have not found fossil evidence to support the existence of a nomadic apeman.

The midtarsal break is not an evolutionary change, it would be considered by Meldrum a symplesiomorphy, a shared trait in afarensis and sasquatch and also their ancestors.

Debating him on bipedalism in Gigantopithecus and those who oppose it like Chiochon and the reasons why I think would be interesting, but not a deal breaker.

I have emailed Meldrum in the past, but not on this issue. Is it possible you could do so and ask him for the sources of his 200 casts? Many of them he got from Krantz, but who were the actual "collectors?" He must have a database of the origins of each one.

I think this is a critically important issue.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

I have emailed Meldrum in the past, but not on this issue. Is it possible you could do so and ask him for the sources of his 200 casts? Many of them he got from Krantz, but who were the actual "collectors?" He must have a database of the origins of each one.

I think this is a critically important issue.

The so called "cripplefoot" casts seem to have convinced Krantz that Bigfoot was real. It seems very likely that these are among the casts in Meldrum's collection. Here is an account of how these casts were collected.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Krantz' famous "Bossburg" casts are not even from the famous Bossburg incident...

Quote:

Rick: "That's an excellent cast for being in snow."

Dr. Krantz: "Oh... that one you saw here is not from that."

Rick: "Oh..."

Dr. Krantz: "That one was taken in late '69. The previous event, where the same individual came through, ahh and it was in soft dirt, not snow. Somebody up in Colville, butcher by trade, made the two casts. Rene Dahinden has the originals. But somebody put those in a very fine bed of dirt and made copies of them, and I was able to get a hold of those and borrow them and make the molds."

The ones Dahinden is seen holding are also not from the famous incident.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

"It used to be you went to a bookstore and asked for a book on Bigfoot and you’d be directed to the occult section, right between the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs," Meldrum said. "Now you can find some in the natural science section."

...
Meldrum said it was a decade ago in Walla Walla, Wash., that he first discovered flat 15-inch footprints in the woods. He said he thought initially that they were a hoax, but noticed locked joints and a narrow arch – traits he came to believe could only belong to Bigfoot.
... he has collected what he says are footprints, hair and feces from the ape-man. He tests hair samples and uses physics to produce charts that purport to show how Bigfoot would walk.

...

"Is the theory of exploration dead?" he asked. "I’m not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists."

Yep, ichnotaxonomy is a real thing. Note, however, that the point of an ichnotaxon is to name something based on fossil (technically ancient, non-fossilized impressions) evidence because there is nothing currently extant that leaves such evidence for which we can obtain a proper type specimen. So Meldrum is already out in left field because he's trying to name an extant ichnotaxon.

Originally Posted by parnassus

The issue of the authenticity of the data is crucial.

Exactly. How he got that paper published - even in the gray literature - is beyond me. But this is what can happen when people - even well-educated people who might be reviewing and editing manuscripts - don't practice good critical thinking. Meldrum makes the case that the prints from Bluff Creek are the real deal because the PGF has never been debunked, the prints are deeper than a man could make, and a heavy biped could be well served by a mid-tarsal break. It all sounds logical, if you've never really thought about it before . . .

Krantz' famous "Bossburg" casts are not even from the famous Bossburg incident...

The ones Dahinden is seen holding are also not from the famous incident.

So....Marx had been part of the Tom Slick expeditions to find Bigfoot, and he moved to Bossburg in 1969, and shortly after that the prints began to appear. The first cripplefoot tracks were found by a man from Colville, but the prints were actually in Bossburg. Subsequently, the big trackway in the snow was found by Marx, under circumstances that Dahinden found suspicious. Marx continued to come up with Bigfoot evidence in Bossburg, including a cast of a handprint, and a film, which was eventually shown to be fraudulent. See this site, which has the fraudulent Marx footage; note that the subject is limping on his right foot, apparently showing the injury that the "cripplefoot" track indicates. Even John Green doubted the cripplefoot authenticity.

The site also seems to make a connection between Marx and the infamous Tom Biscardi. That connection might be worthwhile exploring. Also at that location are some stills from a film made by Ray Wallace; I never knew that famous hoaxer tried to sell Bigfoot footage. He also belongs in the hoaxer hall of fame; Patterson had some casts of Wallace prints, and some were found at Bluff Creek that fall when Patterson shot his film. I do not know if Meldrum has any of the Wallace prints in his collection. Apparently some of these were used by researchers prior to Wallace's death in 2002, after which his family spilled the beans.

My point, if I haven't made it clear, is that the "data' being used by Meldrum was created by hoaxers, and to use it for scientific research is well, choose whatever adjective you like. Not good. So I would like to use this thread to explore those issues. Note that this is a separate issue from whether or not Bigfoot exists.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Another hoaxer whose casts may be in Meldrum's collection was Paul Freeman.

Quote:

1982 – June 10 – Forest Services employee Paul Freeman says he sees an 8 ft tall Bigfoot, but he is soon driven from his watershed patroller job because he appears to have hoaxed evidence.

1982 – Grover Krantz shows Paul Freeman a copy of the handcast that Ivan Marx claims is from a Bigfoot hand. Later this year, Freeman finds and casts “knuckleprints” he says are from a Bigfoot. Freeman also finds prints with “dermal ridges” that local forest services officials feel are hoaxes. Also Freeman later produces films, which are universally viewed as fakes.

Patterson, Marx, Wallace, Freeman. These are the big four. They could, would, and did produce Bigfoot evidence like no others, each moving from footprints to costumes to films. I think suitable dossiers can be compiled on each one, to discredit their "work products" from ever being used for scientific research. If Meldrum is using their stuff, and I think he is, he should stop.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Exactly. How he got that paper published - even in the gray literature - is beyond me. But this is what can happen when people - even well-educated people who might be reviewing and editing manuscripts - don't practice good critical thinking. Meldrum makes the case that the prints from Bluff Creek are the real deal because the PGF has never been debunked, the prints are deeper than a man could make, and a heavy biped could be well served by a mid-tarsal break. It all sounds logical, if you've never really thought about it before . . .

The New Mexico Museum bulletin has a rather slimy past, as well as being gray.

Whatever debunked means, I think there is substantial concern over its authenticity, and certainly more than enough, imho, to disqualify it from use in authenticating a new ichnotaxon. One question I had on the manuscript is Meldrum's distortion of the lengths of the casts; he makes them all line up perfectly, when in actuality they are not at all the same length. He says it was his tech who did it, and that prints from the same trackway are often not the same length. I would like to know if it is standard practice to fool the reader in this way....does anyone know?

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

The New Mexico Museum bulletin has a rather slimy past, as well as being gray.

Slimy?

Originally Posted by parnassus

. . . Meldrum's distortion of the lengths of the casts; he makes them all line up perfectly, when in actuality they are not at all the same length.

Another great example of the problem, and the process. I read that paper 2-3 times and never caught this. Being ignorant of the history of various casts and not taking the time to track down their original sources, I simply assumed that he was representing them to scale. It wasn't 'til someone (Parcher?) raised this here on the JREF that I had any idea they were different sizes. Moral? Work like this not only needs real peer review, it needs multiple peer reviews. Also, given the rampant hoaxing in this genre, every single piece of data he uses should be traced to its original source.

Alternatively, it can all be ignored 'cause it's a load of hooey and Meldrum has zero credibility with actual zoologists. And don't get me started on the Jane Goodall is a believer thing . . .

I do not know if Meldrum has any of the Wallace prints in his collection.

CA-6, CA-19, and CA-20 all come from the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain trackway. When Ray Wallace died, his relatives produced a wooden prosthetic foot that was a dead match for the 13" track. Meldrum holds that the trackway was produced by Bigfoot, but has publicly and privately stated that he does not believe the textures on CA-19 are dermal ridges.

Inexplicably, the treatment in his book is at odds with his public and private verbal statements, and sides with Chilcutt's interpretation that the textures on CA-19 are "dermal ridges."

The New Mexico Museum bulletin has a rather slimy past, as well as being gray.

Whatever debunked means, I think there is substantial concern over its authenticity, and certainly more than enough, imho, to disqualify it from use in authenticating a new ichnotaxon. One question I had on the manuscript is Meldrum's distortion of the lengths of the casts; he makes them all line up perfectly, when in actuality they are not at all the same length. He says it was his tech who did it, and that prints from the same trackway are often not the same length. I would like to know if it is standard practice to fool the reader in this way....does anyone know?

The overall casts usually do not represent the real size of the actual foot or paw. (or butt print) That is the same with foot impressions in mud or sand.

CA-6, CA-19, and CA-20 all come from the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain trackway. When Ray Wallace died, his relatives produced a wooden prosthetic foot that was a dead match for the 13" track. Meldrum holds that the trackway was produced by Bigfoot, but has publicly and privately stated that he does not believe the textures on CA-19 are dermal ridges.

Inexplicably, the treatment in his book is at odds with his public and private verbal statements, and sides with Chilcutt's interpretation that the textures on CA-19 are "dermal ridges."

Has Chillcutt given a explanation to you or anyone, why he thinks they are dermal ridges apposed to casting artifacts?
Does he acknowledge that they could be artifacts? Does he give a detailed reason why they are not artifacts.

Has Chillcutt given a explanation to you or anyone, why he thinks they are dermal ridges apposed to casting artifacts?
Does he acknowledge that they could be artifacts? Does he give a detailed reason why they are not artifacts.

I think Chillcut is doing the exact same thing I think Meldrum is doing. Both going on about their Bigfoot Business™ acting as if they believe in Bigfoot just because it's safer (i.e. Bigfoot won't be disproved) than coming clean and losing all credibility. Chilcutt's documented (I think) reluctance to consider proven-to-occur 'casting artifacts' as even a possibility is really all it takes for me to conclude he's not being honest, and that in fact 'seeking truth' might be on his list, but it's definitely not the number one item, if even in the top three.

Which IMO points totally to the notion that both Chillcut and Meldrum were more than likely given (or took) too much credit from the beginning as to their actual expertise and abilities. I don't think I need to cite an example of other 'bad police work' or 'bad science' to point out how it can and often does happen, even to the 'best' of them (for the die hard Meldrum fans). Anyone think it's possible Chilcutt has sent innocent people to prison? Probable?

Self preservation is about more than just one's mortality. People will do whatever it takes, including <gasp> spewing dishonesty that appears honest <gasp> to literally 'preserve' oneself from any and all manner of personal attack (non physical). And ESPECIALLY SO if one's entire 30 year career/reputation are at stake.

The overall casts usually do not represent the real size of the actual foot or paw. (or butt print) That is the same with foot impressions in mud or sand.

so this is really a non-issue.

Meldrum in the track article writes:

Quote:

Sightings occasionally correlate with the discovery of large discovery of large distinctive tracks that have often been documented by photographs and/or plaster of paris or gypsum cement casts.

I wonder how many of his collection were collected after a sighting? and what the details of the sighting were? How many of the collectors are known personally by Meldrum? what criteria were used by Meldrum to determine those that might be authentic? by Krantz? These would be important questions.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Has Chillcutt given a explanation to you or anyone, why he thinks they are dermal ridges apposed to casting artifacts?
Does he acknowledge that they could be artifacts? Does he give a detailed reason why they are not artifacts.

I don't necessarily believe it is a non-issue?
Just something I try to consider when looking at prints in the ground and the casts made from them. Casts will show both clean registers and the fluid and messy ones. Lyle Lavertys Tarsal photo shows a heel that dragged before the foot registered. Patterson might have done a lot of playing in the sand beforehand to get that one right? ... (or it was from a foot in a fake suit?)

Bigfoot has the uncanny instinct to elude being cataloged.
Does this have some advantage to its survival? They could sit on the side of the road like the black bears in Algonquin Park, and people can feed them nuts.
Doesn't Bigfoot like living a life of risky maneuvers? Like chasing loggers around with chainsaws and stuff.

If Meldrum's consecutive Titimus casts truly are of vastly differ proportions, (the actual determined foot impression in the cast) then we have an issue with either a mix up of Bigfoot track cast samples, or Patty has foot disorders, or all are complete fakes. Anthropologists seem to like foot disorders.

Meldrum and the late Krantz seem to be stuck on the impossibility of their ( midtarsal break and crippled foot casts ) fabrication.

Well, my first impression would be of a flaw among the review board. Parnassus' link (http://www.vertpaleo.org/society/doc...estatement.pdf) seems to show such a case. On the other hand, I've seen a very small number of papers being published (usually in congress) with no other goal than "having a laugh" at the poorly done work or completely crazy idea exposed. Of course, there are also the independently published (quite often paid) material, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Some might believe that the apparent lack of a discussion (note- I haven't followed the outcome, so maybe there was one) indicates a vitory for bigfootery. The truth however, is that one must keep in mind that for a discussion to follow the publication of a work, the work in question must be considered worthy of being discussed. But, since some people within bigfootery claim "Victory!" and "demand to be acknowledged" for very little...

__________________Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

Well, my first impression would be of a flaw among the review board. Parnassus' link (http://www.vertpaleo.org/society/doc...estatement.pdf) seems to show such a case. On the other hand, I've seen a very small number of papers being published (usually in congress) with no other goal than "having a laugh" at the poorly done work or completely crazy idea exposed. Of course, there are also the independently published (quite often paid) material, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

The New Mexico journal is not a peer reviewed one. They have a theme for each issue, and I assume they solicit articles. Most of the stuff is written in house.
I have written to the editor of Ichnotaxonomy to see whether Meldrum's proposed designation has passed muster.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Meldrum co edited a book based on a session of the annual meeting of physical anthropologists. Peter Schmid did one chapter, and seems to see the Laetoli track as having a solid longitudinal arch. Meldrum, I understand, does not agree with this interpretation.

Here is an interesting news item featuring Dr. Schmid, who has unearthed a more recent species, which shows a "flexible foot." Does this tend to support Meldrum?

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

You're not the first one to bring that up. He's heard all of that before, and he'll have reasoning to get around it. He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times. That will take at most 5 minutes. you have another hour and 25 min. What next, repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" ?

A proper discussion with Meldrum would only last 15-20 minutes. Did somebody kill a Bigfoot or find a dead one today? No. That's the same answer for like 500 years now. The answer is always "no" because Bigfoot does not exist. It didn't exist in 1510 either. Jeff, you argue for Bigfoot because you have a quirky eccentric personality. This is not about a forest monster. It's about you. I'm sorry that the topic is personalized but it's the only thing that is logical. We know that you are a practicing Mormon and that is more of the same. What the hell is Mormonism, Jeff? Is there something there, or is it just like Bigfoot? Did you know that the Holocaust never happened? Did you know that humans never landed on the moon?

Quote:

I agree that evidence for sasquatch is poor at best or points to a hoax. I agree that you would think a discovery after all of this time would have been made. I agree that a lack of fossils from North America lends doubt to outright dismissal. These species having been discovered are not my arguments, they are just ones that I know he would have ready when confronted with the "Why no discovery?" question, and the "No scrap of physical evidence", again will be circularly argued back into the tracks and the film.

Again, 5 minutes, maybe 10 tops. What about the next hour and 20 minutes?

Really, the radio program was 2 hours because the hosts are Bigfooters. Debating Meldrum is like debating a Holocaust or moon landing denialist. They just don't get it. But when you have hosts that are essentially in agreement, the talky talk can go on forever.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Actually, Donna Cohrs is the twin sister of Diane Stocking and a polar opposite of her sister on the gullibility meter. Diane will believe it when she sees it, Donna believes she sees it everywhere. Both buy more into Dr. Richard Eisner's theories of Bigfoot foot morphology, as do I. But, no one really knows anything. Dr Eisner would have been my choice for this debate. He has talked to Dr. Meldrum and come to the conclusion most of you have been saying here. It would have been a waste of his time to debate with Meldrum on the MTB subject.

Another great example of the problem, and the process. I read that paper 2-3 times and never caught this. Being ignorant of the history of various casts and not taking the time to track down their original sources, I simply assumed that he was representing them to scale. It wasn't 'til someone (Parcher?) raised this here on the JREF that I had any idea they were different sizes. Moral? Work like this not only needs real peer review, it needs multiple peer reviews. Also, given the rampant hoaxing in this genre, every single piece of data he uses should be traced to its original source.

Meldrum and Odinn/Gigantofootecus say they are all the same size.

Quote:

Alternatively, it can all be ignored 'cause it's a load of hooey and Meldrum has zero credibility with actual zoologists. And don't get me started on the Jane Goodall is a believer thing . . .

Interestingly, Meldrum and Goodall seem to be similar quirky eccentric personalities. She wrote a book called Reason for Hope which reveals that she is a believer in God/spirituality and other wooness. There may be a pattern of openness/acceptance of these things and also for Bigfoot.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

If we can believe this, Paul Freeman was quite an influence on Meldrum:

Quote:

Dr. Jeff Meldrum and his brother Michael were driving back to Idaho from a visit with Dr. Grover Krantz in his laboratory in Pullman, WA when they decided to pay Paul Freeman an unnanounced visit on February 18, 1996. Dr. Meldrum had not met Mr. Freeman before, but it didn't take long for Freeman to see that Meldrum was serious about footprint casts. Freeman invited Meldrum to see the first prints of the season, found just that morning.

Suspecting a hoax, Meldrum agreed to see the tracks. How could Freeman have heard about the unplanned, unannounced visit to Walla Walla? Either way, Meldrum decided he had nothing to lose and went with Freeman to the trackway's location in the foothills of the Blue Mountains outside of Five Points, WA.

Freeman repeatedly talked down the trackway, claiming it wasn't that good. He didn't even cast the prints since he had found much clearer before. To Meldrum's trained eye, however, the trackway was excellent. What Freeman considered flaws in the prints were testaments to their authenticity in Meldrum eye, showing the sponteneity and animation of the foot.

Of particular interest to Meldrum was a half-cast showing distinct toe-slides. The marginal toes had impressed into the side walls of the track, showing indications of the toe segments. There were three toe segments on the outside of the foot, but only two corresponding to the big toe; a subtle anatomical feature not likely known by Freeman if he were to fake tracks like this.
After dropping Freeman off at his home, Meldrum and his brother returned to the trackway location for a closer look. They found that Freeman was incorrect in his description of the pathway of the animal. They found a section of the trackway that Freeman had not examined (as was evident by Freeman's own footprints found in the area), and indeed didn't even know was there.

Seven prints were cast that day. This was Dr. Meldrum's first introduction to evidence in the field, and it had a profound effect on him.

__________________"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Patterson, Marx, Wallace, Freeman. These are the big four. They could, would, and did produce Bigfoot evidence like no others, each moving from footprints to costumes to films. I think suitable dossiers can be compiled on each one, to discredit their "work products" from ever being used for scientific research. If Meldrum is using their stuff, and I think he is, he should stop.

1986 – Paul Freeman finds a handprint he claims is from a Bigfoot, near the Mill Creek watershed, near Blue Mountains, Washington-Oregon border.

1993 – May – Freeman says he finds an imprint of a buttocks from a Bigfoot, he alleges, along Dry Creek, in the Blue Mountain area.